If this is your first visit be sure to check out the FAQ. You have to REGISTER before you can post. To start viewing threads, select the forum that you want to visit from the list below.NOTICE: YOUR ACCESS HAS BEEN LIMITED UNTIL YOU REGISTER!

In order to ensure your registration and verification goes smoothly and quickly you should edit your user profile and add some content that verifies your not a robot. Add an avatar or profile image, add some location information, setup your signature, send the admin a quick private message, etc. You can make these changes by clicking on "Settings" in the top right corner of the site. Once inside your personal settings control panel, you can click on edit profile or any of the other options to begin your customizations.

Doing this will help the forum moderators verify your registration and allow you access to the entire forum.If you refuse to do this or take steps to verify your humanity, there is a very good chance your account will be deleted instead of verified.Users that look suspicious or have suspicious email addresses and users with no profile information will be deleted without warning.

Thecorrectionofthegeometricalerroroftherelativists leads
directly to the results I have reported in my published papers, viz:
(a) Black holes have no theoretical basis whatsoever.
(b) All solutions of Einstein’s ﬁeld equations purporting an expanding Universeare incorrect. The Friedmann solution, the Lemaˆitrīe-Robertsonsolution,theRobertson-Walkersolution,theEinstein-deSittersolution,etc.are nothing more than mathematical gibberish - meaningless concoctionsof mathematical symbols.
(c) The conventional interpretation of the Hubble relation and the CMB arenot consistent with General Relativity.
(d) The Big Bang hypothesis has no basis in theory whatsoever.
(e) Cosmologically, Einstein’s theory of gravitation admits only of the ﬂat,inﬁnite, static, empty spacetime of Special Relativity, which, being devoidof matter, cannot describe the Universe other than locally.

That concludes my address of technical matters. I now address you on thepersonal level.I must ﬁrst apologise, as you for a gentleman I mistook. In all the email
you sent me you included rude, arrogant, condescending, stupid, and insultingremarks. You have rightly earnt yourself a bloody nose, and if not forthedistancebetweenusImightwellhavevisitedyoutod eliverthecausativeblow,not because of your incompetent technical argument, but because your behaviour
has been that of an arsehole. It seems that you are doomed to live and die aconceited shithead, and, moreover, a conceited shithead who cannot do evenelementary geometry.
Stephen J. Crothers.

Miles Mathis.
Addendum, July 23, 2013: On July 12, 2013, the Weather Channel first aired a program on this
problem called “Secrets of the Earth: Gravity.” The program is in rotation and will air many times. It
is straightforward promotion of the Simons-Hager theory, telling us in the audience that the problem of
Canada's gravity deficit has been solved. But, as with everything else, this is propaganda, not science.
Not once in the program is it admitted that this is just a theory—a new theory with lots of obvious holes
in it. No problems with the theory are discussed, although—as we saw above—the problems are
legion. And of course it is never admitted that the entire theory rests on modern math tricks. We in the
audience get very little real information, receiving instead a half-hour of bald salesmanship.
This should concern you whether you are a scientist or not, since you should ask yourself why the
Weather Channel is being used to promote new gravity theories. You should ask yourself if there is any
channel on the dial where you can go and not be propagandized 24-7. You should ask yourself why the
public needs to be force-fed new physics on dozens of channels, in hundreds of magazines, and all over
the web.
I am not against informational programming, of course, or against science instruction, but these new
programs and channels don't come off as either one. Since they don't even present theories as theories,
they come off as indoctrination, not science. These new theories aren't being offered, they are being
sold.
Since the mainstream is in control of the media, the media can be used by the mainstream to sell their
theories. This has always been true, of course, and has always been a danger to objective science, but it
has only recently become fatal to science. It is fatal because it short-circuits any possibility of a true
dialog or agon. It also short-circuits any possibility of criticism. It would be like allowing attorneys in
a court of law to use high-tech media presentations of any length as part of the legal arguments, but
allowing only the prosecution to use them. The defense would have to stand there in a suit and present
only boring oral arguments, while the prosecution showed the jury long polished movies.
But it is even worse than that, since the courtroom analogy doesn't take into account the problem of
numbers. Because only one side controls the major media, that side benefits not only from the ability
to produce and disseminate polished propaganda, it benefits from the ability to reach millions of people
instantly—even people who are not searching for information on that question. By using the Weather
Channel to disseminate science propaganda, the mainstream can gain immediate access to people's
homes and minds. It can tell thousands of people per night who just clicked on to find the current
temperature that Canada's gravity deficit has been solved, putting more public and private funding into
the pockets of those who “solved” it. Conversely, if those same thousands of people watching the
Weather Channel wish to discover an opposing opinion, or to learn of problems with the theory, they
have to look very hard. They won't find it on any TV channel, in any magazine, or on any popular
website. If they are lucky, they may go online, type in the right combination of search terms, and arrive
here on this page. But even then they will have likely been forced through a maze, since even the
search engines are controlled by the mainstream. Hundreds of websites selling the same mainstream
theory will be listed above any website that questions it, and Google is perfecting new ways to bury
alternative information as we speak.
Anyone who understands the definition of science will see how that must endanger science itself.
Science, much like the adversarial system of law, relies on the fair consideration of opposing theories.
But when the mainstream uses TV to sell new theories as fact, the window for opposition, critique, and
fairness is closed.
I will be told that the adversarial system still exists in science, it just exists prior to the creation of the
TV show. It is exists in peer review and in the professional journals, I am told. But any honest person
knows that is propaganda as well. In practice, peer review is the opposite of what we are told it is.
Since the magazines and peers are all owned by and composed of those promoting mainstream theories,
all serious criticism of the mainstream is suppressed. The peers cannot be objective, because reviewing
new papers is only a sidelight for them. The careers of the peers depend on the various standard
models, so they will protect the standard models to their last breaths.
In truth, real science has been shut down by media manipulation, biased peer review, and a hundred
other things. It has been replaced by science propaganda of the sort we see at the Weather Channel, the
Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, and all the other government propaganda channels. Science
promotion has devolved to the level of political propaganda, and now shares both the glitz and
dishonesty of Fox or CNN.

miles mathis.
But let's move on. On April 3, Maggie McKee reported in New Scientist on the non-confirmation of
“dark flow” from the PLANCK probe. This is another non-story, which we could tell just based on the
nature of dark flow. What is dark flow? Dark flow is a theory from 2008 from NASA and Alexander
Kashlinsky, who found anomalies in WMAP that he used to propose a confirmation of multiverses.
Because galaxy clusters appeared to moving toward a certain region, with an energy unexplainable by
current physics,
This flow suggested that the universe had somehow become lopsided, as if space-time itself was behaving like a
tilted table and matter was sliding off, says Kashlinsky. That goes against the standard model of cosmology, which
says that the universe is increasingly uniform on larger scales, making it unlikely that structures big enough to
produce such a tilt would form. Some researchers suggested that, instead, other universes could be pulling on
matter in ours, creating the flow.
Although many working physicists and astronomers had the sense to dismiss this suggestion from the
start, the idea was not immediately killed on its obvious lack of merit. Even this latest article from
New Scientist, which calls the PLANCK cosmic map “a blow” against the theory, still manages to prop
the theory up nonetheless. Although the theory was a non-starter from the beginning, based on simple
logic, physics is corrupt enough to have given it a lifespan of over 4 years now. We have had to read
about in many publications, where it has been given serious attention. And now, New Scientist refuses
to kill it outright, although it never had the least life in it. Maggie McKee hedges again and again,
telling us that dark flow is not ruled out, that we shouldn't wash out the baby with the bathwater, and
that Kashlinsky will be back in a few months to push his reading of PLANCK back toward his dark
flow theory. No doubt New Scientist and many other publications will be there to report on his pushes,
since that is what they do. They don't report any solid physics, since we haven't had any of that for
decades. They just publish all the most absurd theories, the more absurd the better.
These two stories are not the exception, they are the rule. All of new physics reads like this, and has for
many decades—though getting worse with each passing decade. Mainstream journals are not
interested in real physics or real problems. They are only interested in the sexiest avant garde theories.
And this applies to the professional journals as well. You can no longer get any funding or publicity for
a project unless you tie it to the most esoteric, cutting-edge theories. Mechanics and straightforward
physical math are dead: neither you nor I has seen the slightest whiff of old-style mechanics,
kinematics, or sensible math in any physical journal in over fifty years, since there hasn't been any.
New physics is nothing more than a flight of fancy, a flight that takes place inside a computer model
and inside a bloated mathematical system of one sort or another. Any slightest connection to reality,
data, experiment, or sense was cut long ago.
How can physics exist in this state at all? What is in it for the physicist or the audience? Can any selfrespect
be maintained in such a field? Can these physicists really continue to convince themselves that
they are doing physics? Can the writers convince themselves they are writing about physics? And can
the audience be maintained with such paper-thin reports—ones that make no sense? Who can read
such articles and honestly believe they are reading about physics or science? The readership for hard
science would have been small to begin with. Is it possible that the journals have maintained their
readership with such stories?
Which brings us to the answer to all these questions: the magazines have replaced one readership with
another. The audience for real science was always too small. It provided too little advertising revenue.
So although the magazines did indeed lose real scientists and real thinkers when they changed course,
they more than made up for those losses with gains from the next lower percentiles. What they lost
from the science crowd, they gained from the science fiction crowd, which is far larger. Just as the
producers of television figured out that the lower percentiles you appealed to, the greater your profit—
since those percentiles are where the biggest numbers are—the magazines finally followed suit. Some
of the magazines started at the bottom and didn't have to fall, but the science magazines have had to fall
off a cliff to reach their current state. I doubt they even appeal to science fiction readers anymore, since
science fiction readers have some remaining levels of sense—or it is to be hoped. Science fiction
readers expect their plots to be believable, or at least consistent. They don't put up with gaping holes in
the story. If big mistakes are made in Star Trek or Star Wars, or even Planet of the Apes, they swamp
the online forums with complaints. But we see almost no online complaints against mainstream
physics—except mine—so we must assume that the mainstream science journals are not above the
science fiction readers and watchers. . . they are beneath them. Science fiction readers can't be
bothered to keep up with mainstream science, since they know that mainstream science has long been
playing catch-up to mainstream science fiction. For science fiction readers, mainstream science is just
science fiction from bad writers.

Homeopathy is a whole medical system combining theory (philosophy and principles) and practice to support healing and treat a wide range of conditions whether physical, emotional or mental. Endeavour’s Advanced Diploma of Homeopathy course equips students to practice in the dynamic field of homeopathic health care. Homeopathy is the second most used medical system in the world with over 550 million users (World Health Organisation).

Grounded in the classical principles of homeopathy and supported by the latest in homeopathic research and development, students learn to holistically understand an individual’s reason for illness. Students develop the skills and knowledge to naturally and sustainably support the health of whole families. The course includes extensive clinical practicum experience in our custom designed clinic facilities under the guidance of expert practitioners. Endeavour students graduate as confident and resourceful practitioners, equipped to enter clinical practice, join an integrative health practice, or specialise in homeopathic pharmacy and medicines.

Completion of the Bachelor of Health Science (Homeopathy) is recognised by the Australian Register of Homoeopaths (AROH). Graduates may apply for membership with the following:
◦Australian Homeopathic Association
◦Australian Traditional Medicine Society

The ancient practice of Acupuncture is integrated with Traditional Chinese Medicine and has been accepted into mainstream medicine. The basis of Chinese philosophy and acupuncture theory is holistic, acknowledging the existence of a primary motivating life-force and recognising our relationship with the environment.

The Acupuncture Practitioner restores the harmonious flow of energy by influencing the acupuncture points with needles, lasers, or finger pressure.

Study iridology courses! Discover the immense diagnostic power of the iris! It is amazing how looking at the iris can reveal so many secrets about the state of the individual's health. This iridology course explores the most scientific aspects of Iridology and reveals all the secrets of the iris.

On completion of this iridology course, a person is not eligible to practice on their own in a clinic however; credits can be granted towards a professional qualification such as a Certificate IV or an Advanced Diploma course. If you want to professionally practice iridology, please click here. The iridology course graduate can work in a health food store or, simply use this knowledge to gain understanding of iridology. This is an excellent iridology course for those who just want to develop self interest in this subject and use iridology to help their family and friends.

This program is not available to first year students - instead you should consider the Bachelor of Health Science/Bachelor of Applied Science (Chiropractic).

This program is available for second or third year students with advanced standing. Advanced standing will be conferred if you’ve completed at least 1 year of study in a Chiropractic program accredited by the Council on Chiropractic Education Australasia or an international equivalent.

Our program has been a leader in the chiropractic industry since 1975. Chiropractors are trained to diagnose and manage patients who present for care.

The chiropractic philosophy describes the relationship between the spine and nervous system and how this impacts the entire body, restoring and preserving optimal wellbeing.

Chiropractors perform appropriate patient assessment procedures and then use their highly developed manual skills to treat the patient. Patient management often includes advice on nutrition, exercise, posture and other lifestyle adaptations. It may also include referring patients to other health care providers.

RMIT is the only university in Victoria and one of only 3 in Australia that offer a chiropractic degree program.

Graduates can go on to the Master of Clinical Chiropractic program in order to qualify as chiropractors.

The purpose of this study is to examine current North American English language chiropractic college academic catalogs and determine the prevalence of the term subluxation in the respective chiropractic program curricula.

Methods

Sixteen current English-language North American chiropractic college academic catalogs were studied. The term subluxation was searched for in each of the catalogs. Categories were developed for the usage of the term. These included "total times mentioned", "subluxation mentioned in a course description", "subluxation mentioned in a course title", "subluxation mentioned in a technique course description", and "subluxation mentioned in a philosophy course description." The prevalence of the "subluxation mentioned in a course description" was compared to the total programmatic curriculum.

Results

Palmer College in Florida devoted 22.72% of its curriculum to courses mentioning the subluxation followed by Life University (Marietta, GA) and Sherman College with 16.44% and 12.80% respectively. As per specific coursework or subjects, an average of 5.22 courses or subjects have descriptions mentioning the term subluxation. Three schools made no mention of the term subluxation in their academic catalogs; they were National University of Health Sciences, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, and Southern California University of Health Sciences.

Conclusion

Despite the controversies and paucity of evidence the term subluxation is still found often within the chiropractic curricula of most North American chiropractic programs. Future research should determine if changes in accreditation standards and research on evidence based practice will affect this prevalence.

Being both a skeptic and a physician I have focused a great deal of my skeptical efforts towards science and medicine. While I endeavor to be a full-service skeptic, pseudoscience in medicine is definitely my specialty. It is therefore especially painful for me to admit that in this arena, more than any other, we are getting our butts kicked. We are almost at the point of being routed, with the defenders of scientific medicine being relegated to the role of insurgency. How did this happen?

What is Alternative Medicine?

I think the biggest victory scored by the promoters of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) was the name itself. Fifty years ago what passes today as CAM was snake oil, fraud, folk medicine, and quackery. The promoters of dubious health claims were charlatans, quacks, and con artists. Somehow they managed to pull off the greatest con of all – a culture change in which fraud became a legitimate alternative to scientific medicine, the line between science and pseudoscience was deliberate blurred, regulations designed to protect the public from quackery were weakened or eliminated, and it became politically incorrect to defend scientific standards in medicine.

The goal of CAM proponents is nothing less than the elimination of the standard of care in medicine in exchange for an anything goes approach. Key to their strategy was the language game – getting people to talk about fraud and pseudoscience in medicine as if it were a legitimate “alternative”, that pseudoscience can “complement” science or be “integrated” with it. Scientific medicine was rebranded with derogatory labels such as “Western” and “allopathic.” Anyone defending the scientific standard of medicine was attacked as closed-minded, and accused of protectionism.

The very fact that there is a category of medicine such as CAM, whatever you call it, is a significant defeat for scientific medicine. CAM as a category includes an extremely diverse collection of claims and modalities that do not share a common theme or philosophy, including some that are mutually exclusive. The only thing they have in common is that they do not meet the scientific standards of mainstream medicine. The only purpose of the CAM category is to create a space in which substandard or unscientific modalities can exist. It exists to create a double standard.